Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition. Madam Speaker, as I begin, I was grateful to support the prior amendment that we just had by President Gerry Connolly and also Congressman Steve Chabot, but I oppose this particular amendment. U.S.…
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.
Madam Speaker, as I begin, I was grateful to support the prior amendment that we just had by President Gerry Connolly and also Congressman Steve Chabot, but I oppose this particular amendment.
U.S. troops are in Syria to fight ISIS. They were sent by President Barack Obama pursuant to the 2001 counterterrorism AUMF. The global war on terrorism is not over. It is moving, as we have sadly seen, the terrorist attack last week in New Zealand and as we see the terrorists who are coming across the southern border into the United States.
For years we have worked with our partners on the ground to eliminate the caliphate. We must not leave them behind as they have been brave patriots and could be subject to murderous terrorists.
This mission has been incredibly successful. However, the job is not done. The threat of ISIS against American families and our allies remains. The nations that have faced the most cross-border attacks are India with 60,000 deaths; Israel with--just this year, in the past couple of months--12,000 Iranian rockets by an attack by Hamas from Gaza; and, of course, in America 3,000 persons murdered on 9/11.
Our continued presence on the ground is necessary to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS and protecting American families by defeating terrorists overseas.
This shortsighted amendment would prematurely cut short our presence in Syria. Our small force in Syria is incredibly effective and part of the global coalition to defeat ISIS. This is not the time for America to abandon our allies and partners in Syria in the global war on terrorism. None of us want our soldiers overseas longer than absolutely necessary, but forcing a withdrawal too soon only ensures we will have to return as we saw in Iraq when the troops were withdrawn too soon, and U.S. troops had to go in just a few years later to fight ISIS.
In my opinion, we are seeing this play out again, sadly, in Afghanistan as the country is a safe haven for Islamic extremists to provide for suicide bomber attacks on families in India, Israel, and America.
We must avoid a similar situation in Syria. Withdrawals should be based on the defeat of ISIS, not an artificial timeline. We know the success of peace through strength, and we also know of failure by war through appeasement.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, although I would like to point out that I agree very much with my colleague from New York of the appreciation of our Kurdish allies.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Speaker, we are all concerned about the ongoing war in Yemen, including civilian casualties in the conflict with the Houthis murderously using civilians as human shields.
The Iran-backed Houthis continue to launch indiscriminate attacks against the Saudi homeland, threatening Saudi civilians and more than 70,000 American citizens residing in Saudi Arabia.
These murderous attacks target civilians and civilian infrastructure, like the Abha International Airport, causing death, injury, and damage to property. This is an intentional targeting of civilians and is in no way a military target.
The terrorist-supporting regime of Iran is using the Houthis as proxies in the ongoing global war on terrorism.
We cannot forget the pain and suffering that the Houthis themselves have inflicted on the Yemeni citizens with the Houthi brutal subjugation and occupation.
One-sided initiatives that restrict U.S. support for Saudi Arabia, in word or deed, only telegraph more vulnerability that will lead to further attacks by the Houthis. We know the success of peace through strength and the failure of war through appeasement.
It is encouraging that, in recent weeks, the Biden administration's messaging has focused strongly on the Houthis' intransigence in ending the conflict in Yemen, calling on the Houthis to agree to a comprehensive cease-fire immediately.
We must stop terrorists overseas to protect our allies who are targeted by the terrorists. India has lost over 60,000 persons due to cross-border terrorism; Israel, this year, has had to face nearly 12,000 rockets provided by Iran to the Hamas terrorists in Gaza; and, sadly, we noted the 20th anniversary of 3,000 Americans killed on September 11, 2001.
We should be using our longstanding relationship with the Saudis to press them to take every possible precaution to prevent civilian casualties. For nearly a century, there has been a warm cultural, educational, military, and economic partnership with the people of Saudi Arabia.
But this amendment is too far detached from the sad realities of the Houthi attacks across the border and in Yemen. The drones and rockets have been provided by the terrorist-sponsoring regime of Iran, which oppresses its citizens and defames the extraordinary heritage of Persia.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate and join, actually, with my colleagues to point out that it has been encouraging in recent weeks that the Biden administration has changed its messaging to strongly focus on the Houthis' intransigence in ending the conflict in Yemen and calling for the Houthis to agree to a comprehensive cease-fire immediately, as we also recognize, again, that we have had a 100-year relationship with the people of Saudi Arabia that has been so mutually beneficial for the people of Saudi Arabia, the United States, and our allies.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition, with the great appreciation of our chairman, Greg Meeks--great appreciation, even if I disagree.
We are all concerned about the ongoing war in Yemen, including the civilian casualties in the conflict due to the Houthis using human shields.
However, sadly, many are focused disproportionately on Saudi Arabia while the Iran-backed Houthis continue to terrorize the people of Yemen and launch intentional, indiscriminate attacks against the Saudi homeland of innocent civilians, where 70,000 Americans live and work.
We need to be aware of how the rhetoric in America regarding Saudi Arabia and the Yemen war empowers the Houthis to engage in further aggression with the murderous, intentional attacks on Saudi citizens, using drones and rockets provided by the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Iran, which oppresses its citizens and defames the extraordinary heritage of Persia. Iran perpetuates the ongoing global war on terrorism.
It is encouraging that, in recent weeks, the Biden administration's messaging has strongly focused on the Houthis' intransigence in ending the conflict in Yemen, calling on the Houthis to agree to a comprehensive cease-fire immediately.
Additionally, the President already announced his plan to end U.S. support for offensive operations in Yemen, including relevant arms sales.
We should wait and see the results of this new policy before adding further legislative restrictions. We should be using our longstanding relationship with the Saudis to press them to take every precaution against civilian casualties. For nearly a century, there has been a warm cultural, educational, military, and economic partnership with the wonderful people of Saudi Arabia.
While the amendment contains specified exceptions, it does not address the core challenge of trying to rehabilitate the U.S.-Saudi partnership while trying to improve Saudi actions with respect to civilian protections as Houthis murderously use human shields.
I do not think this amendment helps protect our national security interests in the Middle East, nor will it measurably change Saudi actions. We should be standing for the success of peace through strength and not the failure of war through appeasement.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I will disagree with Chairman Ted Deutch. Usually, we agree.
Additionally, I disagree with Chairman Greg Meeks, but I do appreciate the chairman's recognition of the Iranian and Houthi drone attacks on civilian communities where large numbers of Americans live.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.